Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[Ke1t]

Would you like to buy a crystal pyramid?

 

 

Guaranteed to work.

 

"Ah jist ken it wull, ats a ye need tae ken aboot crystul puramids"

 

[The Hulk]

@kelt post#466

 

For clarity, I should've said atheisM and and agnosticisM, as opposed to personalising their adherents, as this wasn't my intention. It's the labelling of the collective. But I suggest it is fair comment to say that these (non) beliefs wouldn't exist without the theistic religions, ergo my point of it being reactionary. Can't people just not believe in God without having a label attached to them, either by others or themselves?

 

I'm not a theist, but I believe in the higher power that created the universe and the most credible source of that creation is most likely to be explained by scientific research. In the way we refer to Mother Nature controlling the elements, we can refer to God as creator in an absolutely non-literal sense. The problem lies with the literal application of God as the deity that is literally taken to have done the things in the bible, when if anything at all it should be taken allegorically

[Master_of_Soulls]

 

 

Ray Comfort... in a world of retarded militant theists he's the mostest retarded... he even embarrasses the Creationist mongs.

 

You listen to this guy talking and you can just feel the IQ points slewing out your ears, to be replaced with sawdust, pixie-wings, and lovely, warm, pigshite.

 

He's been torn to shreds so many times I'm amazed he still gets air time on his own Youtube channel.

 

New Zealand's a free country, though... if he wants to talk nonsense then it's his *ahem* god-given right.

 

For another great example of just how poorly Theists understand even something as simple as evolution, check this out.

 

And when lack of comprehension manifests itself to this degree you have to wonder why you're even debating them/

 

 

Ray Comfort is retarded.

 

However, is he as retarded as "Dr" Kent Hovind? - A Young Earth Creationist currently doing 10 years bird in an American Penitentiary for tax evasion

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o

 

Well, you can decide for yourself

[amancalledbuck]

 

It's not about making shit up. It's about understanding that there are things beyond normal comprehension. You seem to be taking the collectivist view, I'm taking an individualist view. For me the collectivist view is almost as dangerous as the organised religions themselves; belief-sharing. It's not about filling gaps, it's about taking comfort from things that happen. You mention how you take wonder from things. It's the same thing for me. We just think about things in a different way obviously. Some think to be spiritual is to be weak. I think that so long as there is no dogma attached, the opposite is true.

 

This is my take on things, too.

[fatjim]

Your take is based on you making assumptions about what you have experienced and proportioning it to something you have no evidence for.

 

That may not be a god as such but it is certainly something that either you or someone has made up because of a lack of comprehension.

[amancalledbuck]

Your take is based on you making assumptions about what you have experienced and proportioning it to something you have no evidence for.

 

That may not be a god as such but it is certainly something that either you or someone has made up because of a lack of comprehension.

 

I fully comprehend everything.

[robbojunior]

The only certainty in this universe, is that there is no certainty - in anything.

 

No one can say with certainty there is no god. No one can say with certainty there is a god.

 

Everything is a belief. The laws of science are a belief system, not absolutes. To argue otherwise is naive, no in fact, stupid.

 

I choose to believe that the laws of science are the best current explanation we have for most of the universe. However science is perpetually revising and refining and changing itself, therefore a better explanation is always a possibility and there is much that science cannot explain and probably never will.

To apportion the unexplained to a supreme being in the sky who can read your mind and answer your prayers, in my opinion is fucking ridiculous. But to shut yourself off to the possibility of there being anything other than that which science can explain is equally as farcical.

[StandFree1982]

Most athiests are quite open to the fact that there is something bigger that has played a part, whether that be the God Particle or whatever, it's the notion that the universe was created by a bearded man in the sky who has a magical son that makes alcohol out of water that makes the athiest laugh and cringe.

[spamspamspam]

 

bollocks how can not believing in something be a belief

 

 

Because its a persons belief that nothing bar primeval soup and evolution got us here and until it can be proven completely that there is not God or that humans were put on this planet by aliens or in fact some omnipresent being did actually make a bonny garden and ahin wiz rosy until yon slag ruined it all then they are just all personal beliefs even if that belief is in nothing but science.

[fatjim]

 

 

Because its a persons belief that nothing bar primeval soup and evolution got us here and until it can be proven completely that there is not God or that humans were put on this planet by aliens or in fact some omnipresent being did actually make a bonny garden and ahin wiz rosy until yon slag ruined it all then they are just all personal beliefs even if that belief is in nothing but science.

 

Science doesn't even have to come into atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in theisms. Science as robbojunior has said is the best explanation but it doesn't even have to come into the debate. Science doesn't disprove anything that Theists believe. It doesn't have to either. There is no evidence for what theists believe with the exception of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to most atheists as it is merely an individuals interpretation of events or their experience.

[fatjim]

 

I fully comprehend everything.

 

Cool well perhaps you will share your evidence for your take on things.

[amancalledbuck]

 

Cool well perhaps you will share your evidence for your take on things.

 

My evidence for my take on things would only be applicable to me.

 

Who gives a flying fuck about evidence, anyroads?

 

You can prove almost anything with facts.

[fatjim]

 

My evidence for my take on things would only be applicable to me.

 

Who gives a flying fuck about evidence, anyroads?

 

You can prove almost anything with facts.

 

Darn facts spoiling it for people just wanting to make shit up.

[amancalledbuck]

 

Darn facts spoiling it for people just wanting to make shit up.

 

Sew what.

 

It's knit a problem.

[Ke1t]

The fact is that Atheists are probably more open minded, and better educated, than your typical Theist.

 

As an Atheist, I choose NOT to beleive the random and arbitrary explanation for the UIniverse that comes from either the Abrahamic religions or any of the less popular religions. I also choose not to believe that there's a World Tree full of snakes, that the world came out of Danu's vag, or the Orphic Egg.

 

I chose not to beleive them because there's not one shred of evidence to support Mystical Beardy Cloud Daddy, Viking Tree, Fat Chick Fud, or Giant Egg..

 

Now, here's where I think Atheists in general differ from theists and are by their nature more open-minded.

 

Theists have their own set of unsupported beliefs... guys like C_S, for example. Those beliefs are an almost unshakable mindset, the basis of their lives and their psychology. They view ALL other beliefs and non-beliefs as wrong, and above all that they believe that the wrong-believers and the non-believers are going to be punished to fuck for their wrong-belief and their non-belief, while the believers themselves get all sorts of prizes in Heaven for getting the right answer.

 

Even if you were to demonstrate to a Catholic that the world popped out of a fat chick's fud the mindset of the Catholic, or any theist, is so ingrained and permanent, that they would simply dismiss the evidence and continue believing their own closed and immovable mindset.

 

Atheists choose to dismiss the likelyhood of the Abrahimic, and lesser, religions based purely on a lack of evidence, not because of some bizarre need to not believe.

 

Show an Atheist substantial evidence of a supernatural force creating the universe and we'll be quite happy to give that evidence credence. An Atheist can change his position.. there's no imaginary punishment if he no longer doesn't beleive in Atheism.

 

If a Theist changes his mind, however, there's the threat of an eternity of having little wizards poking you with forks in the fiery pits of Hell... not that the theistic mindset is usually open to the notion that their current set of beliefs are anything but set in stone.

 

Show an Atheist real evidence of a god and that Atheist will likely believe in that 'god', or at least give it a good deal of credence... doesn't get any more open minded than that.

 

Show a Catholic evidence that a goat's head and a pentagram created the universe and they'll shit their pants, scream 'Heretic', and likely organise an inquisition.

[fatjim]

Indeed I am open to any credible evidence that would prove either the existence of god or gods. I would also accept the existence of some force if there was credible evidence. Unfortunately for now there is none. For me anecdotal evidence is not credible.

[amancalledbuck]

Ye daft pair of heathens.

 

Naebody is forcing you to believe, or disbelieve, anything.

 

Jist relax and see what path life takes you on.

[Ke1t]

Ye daft pair of heathens.

 

Naebody is forcing you to believe, or disbelieve, anything.

 

Jist relax and see what path life takes you on.

 

Hey, given the choice, I'd LOVE to think Thor was real. The Viking pantheon is a brilliant piece of work. So if someone could present me with proof, or just really good evidence, that Odin is the one true god, I'd be happy as a Hun in shit.

 

That would be fucking magic.

 

[amancalledbuck]

Proof just ruins things.

 

Mind how excited ab'dy was when they announced the Star Wars prequels?

 

Imagine if you'd never seen them.

 

Just hold that feeling.

 

Go on.

 

That, my boys, is faith.

[fatjim]

Proof just ruins things.

 

Mind how excited ab'dy was when they announced the Star Wars prequels?

 

Imagine if you'd never seen them.

 

Just hold that feeling.

 

Go on.

 

That, my boys, is faith.

I wasn't excited. I knew they were going to be shit. Then again I was an adult. Still am I may add.

[amancalledbuck]

I wasn't excited. I knew they were going to be shit. Then again I was an adult. Still am I may add.

 

Ah well, you're fucked.

 

There's nae hope for you.

 

Cynical, auld cunt.

[The Boofon]

Proof just ruins things.

 

Mind how excited ab'dy was when they announced the Star Wars prequels?

 

Imagine if you'd never seen them.

 

Just hold that feeling.

 

Go on.

 

That, my boys, is faith.

Likewise I am so glad they never made a second Ghostbusters.

[fatjim]

 

Ah well, you're fucked.

 

There's nae hope for you.

 

Cynical, auld cunt.

Sorry to break it to you but the new ones are going to be shit.

 

The old ones were a bit shit too to be honest.

[amancalledbuck]

Sorry to break it to you but the new ones are going to be shit.

 

The old ones were a bit shit too to be honest.

 

Have you ever read any Joseph Campbell?

 

You'd like him.

 

I'd imagine Kelt has.

 

Well, I wouldn't really imagine Kelt reading.

 

That would be a bit gay.

[robbojunior]

 

Have you ever read any Joseph Campbell?

 

You'd like him.

 

I'd imagine Kelt has.

 

Well, I wouldn't really imagine Kelt reading.

 

That would be a bit gay.

I've read Joseph Campbell. Reflections on the art of living I think it was?

 

Now there's a clever bloke. Excellent reading.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The book of morons is an excellent read:

 

 

Ive got it, but I aint read it yet.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Depends what you mean by normal sexuality.

Hi Jimbo,

 

It isn't possible to mean different things by "normal sexuality".

 

If you examine the human body (male or female) and how it works, it is resoundingly clear that there is only one expression of human sexuality; that which is in concert with the physical form and biological functions of the human body.

 

Additionally, its obvious that male and female bodies do not make any sense, without reference to one another.

Logic could argue that homosexuality exists because nature is trying to keep the population down.

That's absurd.

 

If we sought to reduce the population, then people would simply have less children. You wouldnt start buggering your mates.

It occurs in many species

Sure does.

 

Some species eat their own shite as well, but that doesnt mean that its healthy / sensible / acceptable / or equally good as not eating shite.

Some species are even able to change from one sex to another if there is an over population of one sex.

Indeed. In Some species its males who become pregnant, and some can / could even become spontaneously pregnant.

 

Yet despite these mechanisms, people will scoff at talk of a Virgin Birth

It could also be argued that a feotus isn't a human being.

No it couldn't, not unless you are prepared to denigrate the science of Human Embryology and everything we have learned from it.

 

At the moment of conception, a new life form with 46 chromosomes is created. A form of life with 46 chromosomes is define as a human being. The new person gets 23 chromosomes each from his/her biological mother and father.

 

The only difference between a newly conceived human being and you is simply time. Nothing else. No futher event or intervention is required.

 

This is not in any doubt, this is science.

I don't really comedy about religion so I wouldn't need to cover these topics.

Fair doos, but it would be an interesting new angle to discuss all the blatant bullshit which secular society believes and promotes.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Proof just ruins things.

 

Mind how excited ab'dy was when they announced the Star Wars prequels?

 

Imagine if you'd never seen them.

 

Just hold that feeling.

 

Go on.

 

That, my boys, is faith.

Like it

[Clydeside_Sheep]

If you have a claim to make then be prepared to verify that claim via evidence. If you can't then don't expect others to take you at your word.

 

There is NO burden of proof on those making no claim. To say otherwise is absurd

This is fair enough, but its not the be-all and end-all. It only stands up as an isolated, stand-alone objection.

 

It is very convenient to the atheist mind to stop the conversation at this point, because if we think things through to the logical conclusion, the atheist position is ever more weakened.

 

Its all very well to say "there's no proof", but at the end of the day:

 

- either something created us (God)

- or we just exist

 

These are the only two options, expressed very broadly.

 

The problem with taking the 2nd statement is that the atheist is then applying all the ideas/concepts - which he has already rubbished relating to God - to ourselves and accepting them as sacrosanct without question.

 

Additionally, its an absurdity to accept that humanity can "just exist" but not God - because if flawed, ignorant, moral humanity can "just exist" then how much more likely is it that God would exist?

 

A Catholic priest wrote in the Guardian recently, it was an article about capital punishment.

He said "everybody wants to play God, instead of believing in him" - how true that is.

 

Ultimately, with the two options above - the leap of faith is the exact same in both cases. Accordingly, to assert there is no God is every bit the act of faith as asserting there is one.

[fatjim]

Hi Jimbo,

 

It isn't possible to mean different things by "normal sexuality".

 

If you examine the human body (male or female) and how it works, it is resoundingly clear that there is only one expression of human sexuality; that which is in concert with the physical form and biological functions of the human body.

 

Additionally, its obvious that male and female bodies do not make any sense, without reference to one another.That's absurd.

 

If we sought to reduce the population, then people would simply have less children. You wouldnt start buggering your mates.Sure does.

 

Some species eat their own shite as well, but that doesnt mean that its healthy / sensible / acceptable / or equally good as not eating shite.Indeed. In Some species its males who become pregnant, and some can / could even become spontaneously pregnant.

 

Yet despite these mechanisms, people will scoff at talk of a Virgin Birth

No it couldn't, not unless you are prepared to denigrate the science of Human Embryology and everything we have learned from it.

 

At the moment of conception, a new life form with 46 chromosomes is created. A form of life with 46 chromosomes is define as a human being. The new person gets 23 chromosomes each from his/her biological mother and father.

 

The only difference between a newly conceived human being and you is simply time. Nothing else. No futher event or intervention is required.

 

This is not in any doubt, this is science.Fair doos, but it would be an interesting new angle to discuss all the blatant bullshit which secular society believes and promotes.

 

Why do men fuck women in the arse and mouth if normal sex is so important.

 

Homosexuality occurs in nature and that is a fact. It doesn't aid procreation hence it's natural occurence being probably as a control of population. Probably a throw back from when humans had no concept of population control like other species.

 

Virgin birth isn't particularly common though is it? Only seems to have occurred in a story. Unless of course this Nun is saying that she wasn't pumped by the priest.

 

I am not arguing for secularism I am arguing on the basis of being an atheist.